← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/24949/2025allowed

Gurnam Singh v. State Of Punjab

2025-07-07Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal2 pages

CRM-M-24949-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24949-2025 Date of decision: 07.07.2025 Gurnam Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 

Present :

Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab.

**** 

 , J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 BNSS in case FIR No.81 dated 28.11.2024, under Sections 109/3(5) of BNS and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (and Section 111 of BNS added lateron) registered at Police Station Kotli Surat Malhi, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that on 28.11.2024 at about 5:20 a.m., 2 persons with muffled faces came on a black colour motorcycle without number plate and knocked at the door of the complainant and they asked about Tejinder's house and then one of those persons took out a pistol and fired shot with an intention to kill the complainant. However, the pistol did not work and both of them ran away on their motorcycle. Therefore, there is no case of injury.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been in custody since 19.12.2024 and charges are yet to be framed. Moreover, he was discharged from the FIR in which he was involved. ANIL KUMAR 2025.07.10 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-24949-2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since trial is likely to take some time, therefore, the petitioner be released on bail. 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. However, he has opposed the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

5.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.

In view of the above submission of learned counsel for the parties and considering the undergone period and the fact that trial is likely to take a long time and charges are yet to be framed, the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 7.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

8.

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.

( ) 

 07.07.2025 anil Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No ANIL KUMAR 2025.07.10 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document